On Sat, 24 Jun 1995, Daniel [Trice] Koepke wrote:
> Here goes a suggestion, though. Turn the "int mound" from a number
> between 1-10, and 0 for off to just TRUE or FALSE. Then, take the number
> of items passed, and 1-10 are the same, and >10 can use #10, too.
In the end, I'm going to try to incorporate that into the enpluralizer
itself--that is, you just pass it the object and the number, and it will
figure out the mounds by itself.
> Another suggestion, have a '%' just append an 's' to the word it's
> prefixed on. That way, we can shorten the amount of time needed to
> enpluralize a string (and also save a tiny, tiny, tiny bit (literally) of
> hard drive space) by instead of typing things like:
> # dead @cat@cats@ @is@are lying here, rotting away...
> We can type something as short as:
> # dead %cat @is@are@ lying here, rotting away...
I'm not quite sure I follow you. %cat would print "50cat" (if you had 50
cats).
> Which is much quicker, and, possably, get as anal as making another
> character to convert singuluar fill-words (ie., "is"->"are") by using a
> structure with, "<word>, <plural form>". This could make the code
> overall more flexible. But, change "#", if I'm not mistaken, you can't
> start a sentence with it.
The # is a little stupid, as far as placement goes. It will replace 1
with "a", so although you can begin a sentence with it, the sentence will
be gramatically incorrect a small percentage of the time. Other than
that, there are no restrictions to using #; enpluralize automatically
capitalizes the first letter of strings. Adding another character to
specify just a fill-word would certainly save some space; I'll think of a
good character to use.
_/\_ GU -d H s : g? p5 au- a17 w v- C UL P L 3- E---- N K- W--- M-- V-- po
/ L \ Y t 5 j-- R G---- tv-- b D B--- e u*(**) h! f !r !n !y+
\_ C_/ =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
\/ HLT! OUT POLICE! MOV HEAD+1,HANDS. MOV SI,[MIRANDA]. REP OUTSB
Are you a turtle?